Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: js1138
But it certainly requires a creator.

Science is predicated on a creator. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

221 posted on 11/04/2003 8:40:20 PM PST by Tribune7 (It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]


To: Tribune7
Where did you come up with this idea?

223 posted on 11/04/2003 8:47:12 PM PST by Ogmios (Since when is 66 senate votes for judicial confirmations constitutional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies ]

To: Tribune7; Alamo-Girl
Science is predicated on a creator. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

Science doesn't pretend to argue about ultimate causes, but it does attempt to analyze currently effective causes. The research program that would support ID is indistinguishable from one that would support evolution. There would be no difference in the materials or methods of research. ID proponents might choose different topics on which to spend research dollars, but they would have to have the same goal.

And that goal would be to find the natural chain of causes for phenomena. You cannot assert that something is designed without attempting to rule out natural causes. If and when you get down to bedrock causes -- the theory of everything -- then you can have a deep discussion of why things are the way they are.

234 posted on 11/05/2003 5:03:02 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson